My YEC Evidence Challenge

[TBDude65]

Says you. I never even said time existed where stars are. I would prefer to wait till we have evidence to decide that. In this earth, time exists though. You think you do not need some time to exist?

Wow, you managed to post something even more ignorant. Touché

 

[AV1611VET]

Cool. Thanks.

My pleasure!

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow, you managed to post something even more ignorant. Touché

From a post long ago:

Two Creationists take a Commercial Flight

AV1611VET: How do we know that the flight crew knows how to fly this plane?

Flight Attendant: They are trained experts and have been doing this for many years.

Dad: All because they are so-called experts doesn’t mean they can ignore God’s Word.

Flight Attendant: What does God’s Word have to do with flying an airplane?

AV1611VET: I use my Boolean Standards to show that flying is against The Inerrant Word of God and The Documentation.

Flight Attendant: Are you talking about The Bible? Where does The Bible say that?

AV1611VET: “Thinking themselves to be wise they became fools.”

Flight Attendant: What does that have to do with flying?

AV1611VET: Homo sapiens means “Wise Man,” doesn’t it? Since the flight crew are Wise Men they are really fools and God will show them they are fools by crashing the plane.

Flight Attendant: What???

Dad: How do these Ivory Tower so-called experts know they can fly this plane between here and the destination? What if the atmosphere between here and the destination is in a different state?

Flight Attendant: Different State?? What do you mean??

Dad: A different state…. Like it was before “The Split.”

Flight Attendant: What “Split?”

Dad: During the time of Peleg. To think differently, is anti-Bible hogwash and a fantasy!

Flight Attendant: What are you talking about?

Dad: You cannot prove that the space-time state between here and there is not different can you?

Flight Attendant: No, but we have never had any problem flying this route before..

Dad: Ha! You just ASSUME there is no difference now, because you assume the past is the key to the present. That is an Anti-God Lie, and thinking only within the box.. I refuse to accept it!!!

Flight Attendant Please, both of you take your seats!

AV1611VET: You just can’t wait to ridicule me, even though I accept 95% of your “science!”

Dad: I just discovered that human flight is impossible! Amazing!!

Flight Attendant: Please, take your seats so we can take off! I promise it is safe!

AV1611VET: Oh yeah.. just like Thalidomide was a Wonder Drug… before it was Plutoed!

Flight Attendant: Thalidomide?

AV1611VET: Sure, Thaldomide proves that your “science” changes with the flavor of the week!

Dad: Prove with your so called science that the state between here and there is the same! You can’t!!!! Human flight is an anti-Bible lie! Amazing!

Flight Attendant: Get off this plane!!!

Two creationists take a Commercial flight

 

[Subduction Zone]

So much for the apologetics section then.

Where else would you suggest?

You could follow forum rules.

 

[dad]

The evidence comes from the fact that the stars have been observed to go on shining for thousands of years.

They do shine, that is the way they were created.

It can be shown, from the mass of the Sun (2×10^30 kg) and its energy output (3.8×10^26 watts), that if it were burning some ordinary fuel, such as coal or oil, it would burn away in a few thousand years.

So it is not ordinary.

The brightest stars, with luminosities tens or hundreds of thousands of times the Sun's, would burn up in only about a year.

If they worked the way you thought and were as far and big.

A small object, say of the size and mass of the Earth and the temperature of a star, would also burn up in only a few hundred years. Therefore stars do not shine by ordinary combustion.

Great glad you got that much.

During the 19th century, Lord Kelvin in Britain and Hermann von Helmholtz in Germany proposed that the stars generate energy by contracting and heating up. Now, suppose that a star was actually an object with the size and mass of the Earth and with the surface temperature of the Sun (5775 K). At a distance of 2000 AU (50 times Pluto's distance from the Sun), this 'star' would be about as bright as the star Capella. A simple calculation shows that if such a star was generating energy by contraction it would have a lifetime of about 300 years.

You have no way of measuring 50 times the distance to Pluto.

In fact, Capella itself has certainly been shining for more than 2250 years, since it was mentioned by Aratus (ca. 315-240 BC); this fact alone disproves the hypothesis that it is an Earth-sized body generating energy by contraction.

Adam saw stars and he lived maybe 6000 years ago.

The same problem arises with the lifetimes of real stars. If red supergiants such as Betelgeuse, Antares and mu Cephei have the sizes, masses and luminosities assigned them by astronomers and they were generating energy by contraction, their lifetimes would be 100-200 years

. They are not that size or getting energy that way.

Also, on the contraction hypothesis the periods of the light variations of Mira variables and Cepheids would decrease faster than they are observed to do.

How far away and how big a star is is paramount in such determinations. Remember, if we look at the space station it has variations also! The issue is what causes then exactly, and how far away they are.

The only energy source that will keep stars shining for their observed lifetimes is nuclear fusion, mainly the fusion of protons (hydrogen nuclei) into helium nuclei.

The only one you know about. Why try to make the whole creation conform to your minuscule experience and knowledge??

We have direct evidence for nuclear reactions in giant stars, in the existence of carbon stars whose carbon has been produced by the fusion of helium nuclei,

Oh really? A carbon star had to come about that way!? Ha. Sure, like you'd know.

and in the existence of the short-lived radioactive element technetium in some giant stars. However, a body needs to have at least 0.08 times the mass of the Sun (26,000 times the Earth's mass) for its core to be at the pressure and temperature (10 million Kelvin) required for hydrogen fusion to take place. This disproves the hypothesis that stars are small bodies close to the solar system. QED.

You assume hydrogen fusion is only possible the way it happens on earth. Then you try to assign the time it would take to the stars. Sorry. Some types of that material are used in nuclear medicine are they not? If so, I doubt we use a sun sized star to get it.


"Because no isotope of technetium has a half-life longer than 4.2 million years (technetium-98), the 1952 detection of technetium in red giants, which are billions of years old, helped to prove that stars can produce heavier elements."
Technetium - Wikipedia

You cannot talk about millions of years because that is just blind faith. You have observed only for decades...or centuries in some cases. Everything you claim is absolutely faith based.

If you can offer an alternative hypothesis that explains the observed lifetimes of the stars, and the fact that stars shine in the first place, I shall be interested to see it.

The space station shines. Flashlights shine. Comets shine. fireflies shine. candles shine. You guys build on circular reasoning and try to shoehorn the universe into a little square hole.

 

[dad]

Wow, you managed to post something even more ignorant. Touché

Heck you hardly even need time to post.

 

[dad]

The first is not considered controversial by most Christians, the second is just strange--The incarnate Jesus wandering around in OT times like Dr. Who, pretending to be Melchizedek, etc.

Incarnate?? He incarnated when He was born. Before that He was not in a human body. What are you on about now? You thought He couldn't be the God of Abraham without a human body?

 

[Speedwell]

Incarnate?? He incarnated when He was born. Before that He was not in a human body. What are you on about now? You thought He couldn't be the God of Abraham without a human body?

You said "Jesus" which definitely and specifically refers to the Word made flesh, not the Word (or the 2nd person of the Trinity) unincarnate.. If Jesus is the God of Abraham, then the God of Abraham has an earthly body--and it's your claim, not mine..

 

[dad]

You said "Jesus" which definitely and specifically refers to the Word made flesh, not the Word (or the 2nd person of the Trinity) unincarnate.. If Jesus is the God of Abraham, then the God of Abraham has an earthly body--and it's your claim, not mine..

Jesus is here forevermore. Alive. He said He was also alive there with Abraham. Get over your little religious limitations and invented little rules you think God has to follow. He doesn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

You said "Jesus" which definitely and specifically refers to the Word made flesh, not the Word (or the 2nd person of the Trinity) unincarnate.. If Jesus is the God of Abraham, then the God of Abraham has an earthly body--and it's your claim, not mine..

You do know that Jacob engaged in hand-to-hand combat with Jesus Christ, do you not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do know that Jacob engaged in hand-to-hand combat with Jesus Christ, do you not?

No, he supposedly fought God. And if you understand the writing, God cheated a bit. Or at the very least he fought "dirty".

 

[AV1611VET]

No, he supposedly fought God.

As the saying goes:

Jesus is in the Old Testament concealed, and in the New Testament revealed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As the saying goes:

Jesus is in the Old Testament concealed, and in the New Testament revealed.

And abusing the Bible is wrong no matter how you do it.

 

[Kylie]

The plumber who lives next door.

Ah, so you agree that you should listen to the people who actually have expertise in the relevant area! You would listen to a plumber!

So, when we have experts in the field of radioactive decay, shouldn't I listen to what they have to say about how it works and what it tells us instead of listening to dad?

 

[Kylie]

If I post a video or site I quote the relevant part. I also am prepared to discuss/defend my point. Posting a video with no quote or stated point is spam.

What's the matter? You can't spare TWO MINUTES of your life to watch a video? I mean, it's not like it's an hour long. It's TWO MINUTES. Shows only one thing - tests of atomic bombs, which is exactly what you asked for.

 

[Kylie]

Jesus was the God of Abraham. Show us a Muslim that worships Him?

So their beliefs are slightly different, who cares? Catholics have beliefs about Mary that aren't held by all Christians.

Says you.

And every Muslim on the planet.

Descended from Abraham...of course. Same God? No way.

Yes way.

 

[dad]

What's the matter? You can't spare TWO MINUTES of your life to watch a video? I mean, it's not like it's an hour long. It's TWO MINUTES. Shows only one thing - tests of atomic bombs, which is exactly what you asked for.

No. I ask that the relevant points be posted, and any video or sources be for support if needed.

 

[dad]

So their beliefs are slightly different, who cares?

God. He said there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we need to be saved.

Catholics have beliefs about Mary that aren't held by all Christians.

Name one in the bible and we can talk.

And every Muslim on the planet.

I don't think they say Jesus is their God actually.

Yes way.

The old testament and Psalms are about Jesus you know. He is the God of the OT also. Gong.

 

[Speedwell]

The Catholic church has sometimes been accused of not wanting to let laymen get their hands on the Bible. I begin to see why they might have been tempted to adopt such a policy.

 

[Kylie]

No. I ask that the relevant points be posted, and any video or sources be for support if needed.

And you asked for how atom bombs explode, and he gave you a video of atom bombs exploding. What's your problem?